I don't think SMU could. Not because SMU couldn't or wouldn't compete in the playoffs, but because of the inherent bias in the polls. A two loss -Ohio State would be a lock as an at large, but a two loss Indiana not so much. It is the subjectivity of the polls, especially in the preseason, that makes it very difficult for a non named brand or blue blood to achieve the ranking that would get an at large. The difference now, is that a one loss Boise State has a legit chance to show their worth in an expanded playoff, and a two loss B12 team will get in as well if BYU doesn't win out. That would never have happened before, and while the deck continues to be stacked against the non blue bloods, some teams that would never have been given the opportunity before, will now have to be beat on the field. All the money imbalance does not change that fact for now, and from my perspective, it does make the regular season much more interesting for teams that may have started slow, but are playing at their peak at the end of the season. If they can find a way where the money imbalance does not allow teams to buy players, then we at least have a chance of a competitive field moving forward. it was not uncommon for either the SEC or BIG to get 50% of the playoff positions in the past. Today, 4 spots gives them 1/3 of the playoff spots, and with the consolidation of the blue bloods, there will be opportunities for those not in the P2.